Follow Us

Saturday, May 18, 2013
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 
Join Metro Jacksonville and get in on the conversation today!Already have an account?  Sign In

Author Topic: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow  (Read 2688 times)

thehill

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2012, 06:04:54 PM »
I have a few questions:

Quote
Conversion of a structure to a restaurant, nightclub or any establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for on-premises consumption shall provide 50 percent of the required parking pursuant to Section 656.604.

1. I take it that this means no more Pele's, Bricks, 13 Gypsies unless they are willing to pay to demolish a nearby structure and replace it with a surface parking lot.  Is the hope that there will not be any potential owners willing to do this? 

I ask, because if someone does have the cash to pull it off, a lot of buildings that should be considered "contributing" stand in the way of being demolished for surface parking, which goes against the intent of the overlay.  This kills the small guys moreso than the larger national chains.  Derby on Park probably wouldn't be able to afford this but an entity like TGI Fridays could wipe out an entire city block with no problem, bringing a little sliver of the Southside and Blanding Boulevard along with it to meet everyone's parking demands.

2. Does this statement apply to all restaurants in general or those that would like to serve any type of alcoholic beverage?

3. What about if a structure was a restaurant at some point in its history?  In this particular situation, would the opening of a new establishment in such a structure still be subject to the same rules.

4. So if this goes through, what's everyone's guess on the neighborhood to benefit from Riverside's lost economic opportunities?  Murray Hill?  Fairfax?  Brooklyn? San Marco? Springfield?


Lakelander-

I would say email Jim Love but I doubt he is capable of understanding the consequences of this ordinance.

I emailed the LUZ committee with those same concerns and never heard back.

I spoke with RAP and they claimed that if the use does not change and the building is not vacant for more than 6 months, then the ordinance would not affect the new tenant or business owner.

This ordinance was pushed by the neighbors of the Avondale shoppes that did not have an opportunity to be heard when Mojo's moved in.

The neighborhood and the RAP board are capping the number of restaurants and bars in our neighborhood.

One silver lining is that it could push nightlife into 5 points, Brooklyn and downtown.

Ben

I personally welcome any of Jim Love's "Shunned" businesses just down the road a bit in lovely Murray Hill.

stephendare

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31551
  • truth beauty art and love
    • MetroJacksonville
Re: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2012, 06:07:22 PM »
And now abide faith, hope and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love

duvalbill

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow
« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2012, 06:17:57 PM »
Quote
Jim Love needs to be taken out to the woodshed come election time if this passes.

Stephen - Pretty sad statement on your part, you don't even live in the neighborhood. Jim lives across the street from me and he cares about the neighborhood as do many of the owners of the Shoppes of Avondale. While I'd like to see more variety of restaurants, I don't have a problem with taking a breather and waiting to see how the neighborhood absorbs more vehicles in the area.

The statement about Jim Love is callous and unnecessary. Jim is doing exactly what we asked him to do when we elected him, and he is doing what he thinks is right. If you think he is wrong, take up the fight against him in the next election.

Taken to the woodshed is a colloquial expression which I'm sure was meant figuratively, not literally (i.e in the polls).  Collectively, we are residents of Jacksonville, so I think it's in our purview to offer our opinions on anything related to this city.  Stephen didn't attack his character, so I think you're picking a poor fight in this regard.  To put it in other terms, lighten up, Francis.

acme54321

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1015
Re: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2012, 08:25:54 PM »
At least MM and Kickbacks are getting through before all of this mess.  R/A is really shooting themselves in the foot.  I think this is going be a much larger detriment to the King St District than Avondale.

stephendare

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31551
  • truth beauty art and love
    • MetroJacksonville
Re: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2012, 10:08:25 PM »
Quote
Jim Love needs to be taken out to the woodshed come election time if this passes.

Stephen - Pretty sad statement on your part, you don't even live in the neighborhood. Jim lives across the street from me and he cares about the neighborhood as do many of the owners of the Shoppes of Avondale. While I'd like to see more variety of restaurants, I don't have a problem with taking a breather and waiting to see how the neighborhood absorbs more vehicles in the area.

The statement about Jim Love is callous and unnecessary. Jim is doing exactly what we asked him to do when we elected him, and he is doing what he thinks is right. If you think he is wrong, take up the fight against him in the next election.

Taken to the woodshed is a colloquial expression which I'm sure was meant figuratively, not literally (i.e in the polls).  Collectively, we are residents of Jacksonville, so I think it's in our purview to offer our opinions on anything related to this city.  Stephen didn't attack his character, so I think you're picking a poor fight in this regard.  To put it in other terms, lighten up, Francis.

love the "Stripes" reference Duvalbill.

And of course I meant figuratively.

As it happens, I genuinely like Jim Love as a person and know that he means well.

To be honest, it is kind of fun to red bait him a little bit. 

But this is a matter of principle that transgresses the bones of any real republican.

If you can't fix an issue without commissioning a government panel to simply go in and outlaw new businesses in a goddam recession, then you have no business calling yourself a pro business republican.  Might as well start memorizing passages from Chairman Mao and get it over with.

Riverside will be the only district in town where businesses will not have the option of following the prevailing laws that govern the rest of the city because of the designs of a privileged few committee members.

And now abide faith, hope and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love

thelakelander

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18418
Re: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2012, 10:12:59 PM »
At least MM and Kickbacks are getting through before all of this mess.  R/A is really shooting themselves in the foot.  I think this is going be a much larger detriment to the King St District than Avondale.

^Yeah, I don't see this having much impact on Avondale.  It's not going to stop MM from coming in if they decide too.  It will probably stymie redevelopment along King Street though because there's still a ton of underutilized spaces there.  However, even King will look different in a few months with Salty Fig, Dahlia's Pour House, and Goozlepipe & Guttyworks coming on line.  The key for King Street will be what happens with the bank site in the future.  It has enough size to put up a vertical garage supporting a decent amount of restaurant space for it and the surrounding area if it were ever redeveloped.

However, if we learn anything from history is that you can't stop development if there is a market for it.  It didn't happen with the original Avondale subdivision in the 1920s (Shops of Avondale and Murray Hill's First Block grew right outside deed restricted section) and it won't in 2012.  My guess is that if there's a market for large restaurants, we'll see some more development in Murray Hill, Five Points and Brooklyn.  If 220 Brooklyn and Riverside Park come out the ground, it will be interesting to see what happens in Brooklyn.  For clubs, I'd keep my eye on the brewery district.  Lots of cheap available warehouse space and outside the district's official borders could create ideal conditions for those types of uses.

The other thing to watch out for is the national chains.  Don't underestimate their ability to take out a block of overlooked historic "non-contributing" structures to fit a suburban box with the necessary off-street parking they love anyway.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 10:16:43 PM by thelakelander »

tufsu1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
Re: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2012, 10:24:12 PM »
I believe it is only being introduced tomorrow...it still needs to go to the LUZ Committee before returning to full Council for a vote

It was in front of LUZ last week.

It is a done deal.

oops..my bad

tufsu1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9129
Re: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2012, 10:27:02 PM »

And I am ashamed to say that this bill has been introduced and sponsored by a republican.

Ive had a lot of beef with my childhood party over the years, mostly on a national level, but I never ever thought I would see the day when a local republican went commie.

Jim Love needs to be taken out to the woodshed come election time if this passes.

In fact, any council member who claims to be a republican but supports this business killing bill needs to have this issue brought up at every campaign speech they make for re election.

Im just disgusted

local government is often not related to national party politics

TheCat

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 709
Re: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2012, 11:33:32 AM »
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 11:56:48 AM by TheCat »

urbanlibertarian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2874
  • Live and let live.
Re: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2012, 11:51:57 AM »
The economic development being shunned by RAP is not only welcome but desperately needed in nearby areas.  Bring on the 7-Elevens, McDonalds, Family Dollars, pawn shops, car washes, food trucks, etc.  It's all good!
Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes (‘Who watches the watchmen?’)

TheCat

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 709

acme54321

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1015
Re: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2012, 12:13:41 PM »
I would love to see a lot of these restaurants/bars come to San Marco, possibly along Hendricks where Aardwolf is going in.  Seems like we are always crossing the river to go out.  The Oklahoma area between Hendricks and San Marco Blvd is ripe for some development, a little run down now.

stephendare

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31551
  • truth beauty art and love
    • MetroJacksonville
Re: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2012, 12:39:17 PM »
Btw there seems to be a very deliberately asinine attempt to make a couple of absurd claims about RAP having magically gotten listed on the good Lord's List of Bestest Neighborhoods in the World, in order to squelch the credibility of dissenting voices o. This issue.

Take for example, Wayne Woods unfortunate recent debate which he began with an attempted excoriation of myself on the basis of my lack of support for some of his more fanciful claims about the history of the neighborhood.

In fact the claim is actually a simple inclusion on an annual great neighborhoods/ great places list compiled by the American Planning Association.

This list, which already includes forty other neighborhoods and which grows by ten more each year (it was established In 2008)  is chosen based on the excellent attributes which reflect the goals and ideals of the American Planning Association.  These are goals and ideals which are shared in large part by the founders and board of metrojacksonville, which has also been honored by both the local and state organs of the same association.

Perhaps the passage of a couple of years has allowed the bragging rights to grow into questionably sweeping assumptions on the part of a privileged and powerful few in the community to justify any hare brained scheme on the part of the resident group, no matter how out of sync with the APA recognition they might be.

For example, the neighborhood was included on the list for three reasons which have literally nothing to do with residential decisions or purview.

1.  The size and diversity of the architectural stock.  No living person is responsible for the diversity of the architectural stock.  Preservation groups can take some of the credit for the sheer number of buildings left standing, but they cannot take credit for how many of them were built to begin with.

2.   The diversity of transportation options--which tragically emphasized the now cancelled riverside trolley buses.

3.  The presence of five very distinct commercial districts in the neighborhood.

For anyone who would like to verify this, please refer to the actual website of the American Planning Association:
http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/neighborhoods/2010/

From the perspective of the actual blue ribbon panel, the present embarrassing, pro parking lot, pro demolition, anti business contretemps would seem to be, at the very least, counterproductive.

What is it about this neighborhood where any recognition is hijacked and credited to groups besides the actual causes?

This is very similar to the spurious claim that RAP forced Publix to develop a new "historic store design and layout" that the company has gone on to use nationally.  This claim turned out to be pure poppycock,  on the same level as when Romy tried to tell everyone at the reunion that she had invented Post its.
And now abide faith, hope and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love

cline

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1109
Re: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow
« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2012, 01:15:41 PM »
Quote
Don't underestimate their ability to take out a block of overlooked historic "non-contributing" structures to fit a suburban box with the necessary off-street parking they love anyway.

And there are many of these structures in the district that could be demolished tomorrow...legally.

thelakelander

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18418
Re: Anti-Business Legislation by Jim Love: Council Vote Tomorrow
« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2012, 02:16:59 PM »
This is very similar to the spurious claim that RAP forced Publix to develop a new "historic store design and layout" that the company has gone on to use nationally.  This claim turned out to be pure poppycock,  on the same level as when Romy tried to tell everyone at the reunion that she had invented Post its.

Where did you hear this from?